Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules

Hi,


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>  IMO if a WG is designing a NETCONF/YANG solution for some feature, it
>> should include monitoring and notifications in NETCONF/YANG as well. I
>> think SNMP makes the most sense for a WG if no configuration is
>> standardized.
>>
>
> My view is that we should try to replace SNMP over time, and netconf/yang
> should be used for monitoring and configuration. I wish SNMP write would go
> away, mainly due to beforementioned security problems. I am not sure the
> current implementation of netconf transport for yang makes sense for bulk
> collection of data, and that's perhaps something that should be rectified
> over time. However, I fully support the initial proposal to encourage more
> netconf/yang usage over SNMP and other configuration methods.
>
> Question is, since it's hard to make the working groups create SNMP MIBs,
> it's going to be even harder to make them create yang models (at least
> initially), how is this going to be achieved?
>
>
For now the NETMOD WG is working on standard YANG modules.
I think monitoring would only be done to support a configuration module.
For existing MIB modules, we already have RFC 6643 to provide
a direct (read-only) mapping from SMIv2 to YANG.


Also, doing models by means of publishing RFCs is kind of heavy process
> approach to achieving a structured model of management. I wish we could
> come up with something a bit more lightweight that would support including
> model extensions within the drafts proposing new behaviour.
>
>
IMO, the bar is high in the IETF and that's a good thing.
Vendors have to agree on the details. That's always been the
hard part -- not the RFC publication process.


For instance, today an author can request protocol number allocations from
> IANA etc. Wouldn't it make sense to have a similar model for extensions of
> yang models?


Anybody can define their own YANG modules. IANA is not needed
to publish non-IETF modules.



>
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email protected]
>
>

Andy

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area